Connect with us

Broadband Mapping & Data

Experts Disagree on Increased Requirements for FCC Broadband Nutrition Labels

Rules can increase the burden on small providers.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2023 – Experts disagreed on whether the Federal Communications Commission should require more data from internet service providers for broadband “nutrition” labels at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event Wednesday.

The broadband nutrition label, as mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, requires broadband providers to display at the point of sale a label that shows prices, introductory rates, speeds, data allowances, and other critical broadband service information. 

The FCC released proposed rules on July 18 that would add additional requirements to the nutrition labels, to which several providers and associations expressed that the additional rules would place undue burden on small providers and would not improve data, said Steve Coran, chair of Lerman Senter’s broadband at the Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. 

Data requirements as currently outlined by the FCC are balanced, clear and easy and will promote transparency, said Coran. In response to responses from providers, the FCC increased its estimation that the proposed rulemaking would create between 1 and 9 hours of annual burden on providers to a range of 1.5 to 65 hours, he said. 

However, Ryan Johnston, senior policy counsel at municipality public interest nonprofit Next Century Cities, warned that the label requirements will not provide data as comprehensive as is necessary. As currently written, providers are allowed to report the “typical” speeds that each location receives. These ranges provide no certainty and is “more ethereal than the maximum advertised speed,” said Johnston. 

Additionally, the FCC failed to include the measurements that consumers want to see, include more precise pricing models, promotion lengths, and expected bill after promotions are done, said Johnston. He urged the FCC to require providers to report the average speed. 

Joshua Stager, policy director at Free Press, agreed, saying that the core issue for consumers is to address bill shock, referring to the uncertainty around internet bills and the detrimental effect it has on low-income households. For this reason, he urged the FCC to ensure that consumers will be able to access the label. 

Stager said that the FCC declined to require that the label be put on the monthly bill. He warned that providers can hide the label from consumers which will result in a lack of market response simply because consumers are not aware that the label exists. 

Discriminatory pricing in the industry is blatantly obvious, said Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in telecommunications at Penn State University. “The FCC consistently refuses to collect the kind of information that would exonerate ISPs or condemn them,” he stated.  

Sascha Meinrath

He warned that this lack of appropriate data collection will be to the detriment of consumers. He accused the FCC of refusing to act against discriminatory and predatory pricing, claiming that it is a prime example of “American corruption.” 

Meinrath, who assisted in the initial proposal for the nutrition labels, said that the goal of the labels was to provide customers with information on the minimum services they will expect to see. He claimed that the current nutrition labels are insufficient and do not achieve those goals. 

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 – Broadband Nutrition Labels: Have They Improved?

In late 2022, the Federal Communications Commission required internet service providers to display broadband “nutrition” labels including speeds, service reliability, ACP participation and other relevant metrics at every point of sale. While there is consensus on the need for an informative and consumer-friendly label, some believe the requirements go too far or don’t go far enough. With federal broadband funding making its way to each state and the implementation phase just around the corner, the “nutrition labels” will soon become a reality. What might be the FCC’s next steps? How will the requirements affect broadband providers? How can consumers make sure they order from the right broadband “menu”?

Panelists

  • Ryan Johnson, Senior Policy Counsel, Next Century Cities
  • Steve Coran, Chair, Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group
  • Joshua Stager, Policy Director, Free Press
  • Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State University; Founder, X-Lab
  • Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast


Ryan Johnson is responsible for NCC’s federal policy portfolio, building and maintaining relationships with Federal Commissions Commission officials, members of Congress and staff, and public interest allies. Working with various federal agencies, Ryan submits filings on behalf of NCC members on technology and telecommunications related issues that impact the digital divide such as broadband data mapping, benchmark speeds, spectrum policy, content moderation, privacy, and others.

Steve Coran is chair of Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. He represents broadband providers, private equity firms, equipment and technology companies, and new technology firms, serving their policy, transactional, compliance, and licensing needs. He also actively represents a trade association before the FCC, Congress, and other federal agencies in matters involving spectrum policy, Internet regulation, the Universal Service Fund, and other proceedings affecting wireless broadband service providers and other wireless technology interests.

Joshua Stager is the policy director at Free Press, where he advances policies to close the digital divide, protect consumers, and make the broadband market competitive and affordable. As a public interest advocate and attorney, he works closely with industry, Congress, the FCC and other federal agencies. He previously was deputy director of the Open Technology Institute.

Drew Clark is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

WATCH HERE, or on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Contributing Reporter Teralyn Whipple, who joined Broadband Breakfast in 2022, studied marketing at Brigham Young University. She has reported extensively on broadband infrastructure, investments and deployment. She has also headed marketing campaigns for several small companies.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Broadband Mapping & Data

Bruce Kushnick: Look Overseas, America’s Prices for Broadband are Out of Control

America’s prices are 5–10 times higher than comparable data from other countries.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Executive Director.

This chart, taken from the European Union Report on Broadband, shows that a triple play — phone, cable TV, broadband-Internet, can cost about 36 Euros for a service with 30–100 Mbps speeds, and 21 Euros for a stand alone service.

The average U.S. triple play is about $220.00 a month, and with an exchange rate of 1 Euro=$1.09 Dollars, the overcharging, which we documented, is $150+ a month — or more.

The Digital Divide was created, in large part, because prices are unaffordable, and America is now paying for over 20 million low-income families to have broadband — up to $30. a month allowance.

America’s prices are out of control, yet where are the investigations and audits to explain how overseas prices are a fraction of what we are paying in the U.S.? And why are we giving billions to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide in the first place?

We assembled our previous research with new findings in this new series, using both 3rd party expert analysis as well as actual examples from December 2023, comparing and detailing the out of control US prices vs the services of free Telecom in France and Spectrum-Charter in New York City.

America’s broken promises and the state 5-year broken broadband plans

America’s prices for broadband have made high speed internet unaffordable for many households, Moreover, the pandemic revealed a major Digital Divide where whole areas of the U.S. were never upgraded to fiber optic networks, much less high speed services even over the copper wires. Thus, no competition to lower rates.

And every state now has plans to ‘bridge the Digital Divide’, but in all of the state broadband plans, none have addressed how the Divide started in their state or about the massive financial price divide between America and the EU or Asian countries that charge a fraction of the prices charged in the US.

Over $150 billion is being given out in state and federal government subsidies over the next few years, and much of It going to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide.

The states must investigate the core issues as they impact almost every FCC, NTIA, FTC, Congressional and state current and future actions.

The opening chart tells the tale of how the European countries did not allow for massive multiple additional made up fees, such as the Broadcast-Sports fee ($27.90 on a Spectrum Triple Play). Moreover, the services do not charge ridiculous prices for equipment, such as set top box, that is required to use the service. Also, because there is competition, customers have choices and prices have not skyrocketed, but are actually going down.

America’s prices are 5–10 times higher than comparable data from other countries

How can America’s prices for the stand-alone, double and triple play — (phone, cable TV and ISP-broadband) be 5–10 times more when comparing data from other countries, as highlighted in the European Union Commission’s report, published July 2022 for the year 2021. And, as the report details, even basic stand-alone high speed broadband prices overseas are a fraction of what we’re paying in the U.S.

  • America’s “Double play” — high speed broadband and phone service — is being overcharged, on average, almost $75 a month — a whopping $900 a year.
  • The “Triple play” is being overcharged by $180 a month on average; this comes to overcharged, over $2,200 for the triple play.

The current triple play in America, after the promotional prices end, is now around $220.00 a month, yet overseas, the average was around $40 a month, but the prices overseas are in decline. However, in some countries, it can be as low as $23.00 for 200 Mbps or more; only $15 for the double play.

According to the EU report, we’ve even been beaten out by Bulgaria, Romania and let’s not forget Slovakia:

  • “Overall, Lithuania and Romania have the most attractive prices for broadband internet in the EU. All the offers in these countries belong to the cluster of the least expensive countries in their respective baskets. Bulgaria, Latvia and Slovakia follow. Poland, Hungary, France and Spain have low prices especially for Triple Play.”

But when the EU report says prices are “attractive”, we are talking $10–12 bucks a month for stand-alone broadband and $20–23 for the triple play, with speed of 200 Mbps or more.

By the way, Bulgaria does get Netflix and their Top 10 shows are close to America’s viewing.

How is it possible that America’s Triple Play is $150-$200 a month over what is being charged overseas? That’s over $2,200.00 a year ‘extra’ being charged to families — including low-income families and fixed income seniors. This is on top of the fact that there could be only one or no providers of high-speed services in the rural regions or in low-income neighborhoods of cities.

It would be one thing if it was a small differential between the overseas EU group and others price of service, but this is a difference that is too large to be ignored.

What are the underlying issues?

No Serious Competition to keep market forces and rate increases at bay. First, AT&T et al. failed to show up with high-speed competition to keep the cable companies, the other group of providers that use a wired connection, in check. For example, in CA, AT&T-Pac Bell had obligations to bring fiber optic broadband throughout the state and our maps showed that much of AT&T’s entire Los Angeles county region had been left to deteriorate and not upgraded as promised with fiber optic infrastructure.

Made-up Fees and surcharges are out of control. One of the sleaziest practices in the US has become the addition of made-up taxes, fees and surcharges that are not mandated or government sanctioned. This is being done so that the companies can quote a price that is missing 20–40% of the total costs,

Made-Up Taxes include:

  • Broadcast and Sports surcharge: $15–24.00 a month
  • Cost Recovery Fee: $1.99–2.99
  • Admin Fees: $1.49-$2.99 per month
  • Pass-through taxes, Gross receipts tax, telecom taxes

The largest and most egregious added fee is now the Sports and Broadcast surcharge, which is really 2 separate charges that have been merged in many cases:

Made-up, Broadcast-Sports Fees Up 820%; Overcharging $250+ a Year — then Quintuple-Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged.” This article was written in December 2021, and along the way there have been increases bringing the total charge on the Spectrum NY June 2022 bill to $23.70 a month. This one fee on the Spectrum NY Triple play bill is more than the entire charges for a triple play in many overseas EU countries.

This charge went up to $27.90 a month extra in 2023. That is an overall increase of 1,140%.

  • Quadruple Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged. — If the increases to this one fee is not enough, there are made-up taxes, fees and surcharges being applied to this fee as it is considered ‘revenue’ to the company and is taxed as such. And some of these surcharges are actually tax pass-throughs where the company gets to have the customer pay the company’s taxes.
  • It is impossible to calculate the exact tax assessment as there is no ‘Rosetta Stone’ to be able to unravel how each tax, fee and surcharge is applied.

But, considering that basic telecom taxes can be 12–20% depending on the city and state, if a 15% tax is applied, that would add an additional $3.55 more per month.

  • Not included in the advertised price: To add irony to obfuscation, this fee is never included in the advertised rates, nor is it added completely in the promotional price, making the increases after the promotion even more egregious.
  • Not included in the EU statistics for the U.S. Triple Play: Ironically, the EU informed us that they do not include the extra charges and fees in the US because — well, the other countries only have a VAT (Value Added Tax), and not the made-up fees.
  • No Oversight, No Audits; Regulators Failed U.S.: The idea that a state-franchised cable service or the Holding Companies that control the state telecommunications public utility can just make up fees and add them to bills with no one asking for a cost analysis or some other justification to raise this make-believe charge, should have the peanut gallery screaming.
  • Public has Amnesia: No one knows who these local telecom companies are or what they’ve been able to get away with. And virtually no one could answer basic questions about who the companies are or the services they offer.
  • Let’s give government subsidies to keep America in a perpetual state of “Please Sir May I have another?” Currently there are subsidies being given to low-income families to go online, which are then handed over to the same companies that have caused this Divide in the first place; i.e.; a new flavor of Corporate Welfare. We will address these issues in an upcoming story.

The telecom holding companies that control the critical infrastructure wires, towers and antennas created the Digital Divide. They also control the pricing of all services, wireline, wireless, broadband, internet and even cable, and as we will discuss, they also were able to manipulate the accounting formulas to have the state telecom utility act as a cash machine to fund, illegally, the other lines of business.

America must go after these cooked books and must clean up the mess. There is plenty of money to get America upgraded, and it must be seen as the first step in LA County to clean up the mess and decades of public policy and regulatory issues.

Government subsidies, both state and federal, to companies who have created the Digital Divide and can control the prices and profits over the public utility wires needs immediate investigations — not more gifts of largesse.

Bruce Kushnick is Executive Director of New Networks Institute and a founding member of the Irregulators. He has been a telecom analyst for 40 years, and playing the piano for 65 years. A version of this piece originally appeared on Medium on January 9, 2024, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping & Data

Broadband Measurement Summit Announced for March 7

With state broadband challenges underway, Broadband Measurement Summit brings BEAD into dialogue with FCC nutrition labels.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, January 9, 2024 – Broadband Breakfast is pleased to announce the Broadband Measurement Summit on Thursday, March 7, in Washington, D.C.

This new one-day event will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and brings together the top stakeholders in understanding broadband speeds, prices, availability, reliability and competition. The Summit is in-person, but with a webcast component.

The Early Bird price of $195 available until Friday, February 9, 2024. Existing Breakfast Club Members take an additional $100 off the in-person event.

Sign up for the Broadband Measurement Summit, and visit the event page for updated information about panelists, keynotes and sponsors.

PANEL 1: THE CHALLENGE PROCESS FOR STATE BROADBAND OFFICES

Many state broadband offices are about to begin their broadband mapping challenges under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment grant program. This is a process for states to verify locations that are unserved (i.e., they lack access to 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) * 3 Mbps broadband), and locations that are underserved (i.e., they lack access to 100 Mbps * 20 Mbps broadband). A few advanced states have already begun, or have already completed the process. What have they learned? What “challenges” are they facing? What’s next for broadband mapping?

PANEL 2: THE VALUE OF MAPPING ASSETS BEYOND BEAD

Besides current broadband challenges, what geospatial, demographic, and operational information is important for BEAD implementation? In particular, what geospatial information do investors and operators of broadband networks need to better deploy broadband? This session will consider why mapping assets is valuable well beyond the BEAD program.

PANEL 3: THE FCC’S BROADBAND NUTRITION LABELS

As if the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s BEAD program wasn’t enough, the Broadband Measurement Summit will consider the current status of the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband “nutrition” labels. By April 10, 2024, larger ISPs must display these new Broadband Consumer Labels at the point of sale. They must use clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the cost and performance of broadband services. Internet service providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines must do so by October 10, 2024. How is the FCC’s nutrition labels process going?

PANEL 4: MEASURING AND TRACKING BROADBAND PRICING

The Biden Administration’s “Internet for All” program emphasizes the important role of affordable broadband. That’s one reason that the Affordable Connectivity Program has loomed so large in discussions of America’s broadband buildout. What does the evidence show about the price of broadband in the United States versus other Western nations? How does it vary by location? As part of the more detailed and granular broadband mapping and data now being collected, is broadband pricing data being left out?

SPONSORED BY

BroadbandNow is a data aggregation company helping millions of consumers find and compare local internet options. BroadbandNow’s database of providers, the largest in the U.S., delivers the highest-value guides consisting of comprehensive plans, prices and ratings for thousands of internet service providers. BroadbandNow relentlessly collects and analyzes internet providers’ coverage and availability to provide the most accurate zip code search for consumers.

Broadband Measurement Summit Program

 


Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping & Data

NTIA Endorses FCC’s Proposed Increase of Broadband Speed Benchmark

The FCC sought comment on upping the definition to 100 * 20 Mbps.

Published

on

Graphic by Richard Patterson.

WASHINGTON, January 3, 2024 – The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is backing the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to alter the definition of broadband to increase the speed benchmark. 

The current definition, set in 2015, requires a speed of 25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload for internet service to be considered broadband, or high-speed internet. The commission sought comment in November on a proposal to increase that threshold to 100 * 20 Mbps, in addition to using more data sources in its assessment of broadband availability in the U.S.

NTIA officials met with commission staff on December 21 to express support for the move, according to an ex parte letter the agency filed last week. 

“We support the Commission’s proposal to raise the speed threshold for fixed broadband to 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream,” the agency wrote, saying a higher benchmark would better reflect user needs and bring the standard in line with the Infrastructure Act’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, which the NTIA is tasked with managing.

That $42.5-billion broadband expansion effort already has a 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, meaning infrastructure funded by the program will be required to provide at least that speed, and areas currently receiving slower internet will be eligible to be served with BEAD funded infrastructure. Homes and businesses receiving less than the current FCC benchmark of 25 * 3 Mbps are given special priority.

The commission is required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to conduct annual assessments of the “availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” In the same November notice of inquiry, the FCC proposed adding a number of new data points to that assessment, including latency, affordability, adoption, and equitable access among minority groups. That will partly be facilitated by the commission’s new Broadband Data Collection database, which has more precise information from internet providers.

The NTIA endorsed all of that as well, writing: “The Section 706 inquiry has the potential to serve as an important indicator of our nation’s progress toward achieving digital equity, and it will be best equipped to do so if it examines the available data on a wide range of challenges in this field.”

The agency added that it is working on a project with the Census Bureau to estimate broadband adoption in small geographic areas.

Industry response

In comments to the commission, broadband industry groups expressed broad support for the 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, but some disagreed on the commission’s proposed long-term goal of 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps – something the NTIA did not touch on.

CTIA, a trade group representing wireless providers, wrote that while the commission noted some situations in which users require more than 100 * 20 Mbps, “none of these justifies a fixed broadband benchmark above 100 * 20 Mbps, even as a long-term goal.” That’s a view shared by WISPA, an association of wireless broadband providers.

NTCA, which represents small and rural broadband providers, advocated for an even higher long-term goal, but did not specify an exact number. Trade group INCOMPAS pushed for setting the download benchmark to 1 Gbps now, rather than in the future.

USTelecom, another broadband industry group, said the long-term 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps goal would be impractical, as the only technology capable of providing those speeds is fiber-optic cable.

“There are locations where deployment of fiber is not practical now and may never be,” the group wrote in comments to the Commission.

CTIA also opposed adding non-deployment metrics like adoption and affordability to the 706 inquiry, arguing that reporting requirements for existing Universal Service Fund programs are a better venue for assessing them.

This story was updated to reflect the current definition of broadband, 25 * 3 Mbps.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending